The Vatican and the Lefebvrists: Not a Negotiation

[anthony]

Indeed.

The tamest post from DK, in DK history.

[Baskerville]

Weigels an idiot pay him no mind. Like DK said he is a NOtard par excellence.

[karyn_anne]

I don't like it when people say "Lefebvrist" as if it were some kind of cult. 

I'm not a Lefebvrist,

I'm a Roman Catholic who adheres to tradition through the Priestly Fraternity of the Society of St. Pius X and is thankful for Msgr. Lefebvre's  efforts to keep the TLM alive.

So am I. Without the dear Archbishop tradition can almost forget about surviving.

[SoCalLocal]

Which brings me to my real question.  (Apologies if this is now common knowledge.)  Does anyone actually know the state of the talks?  Where might we go to find out more details?  If this is merely an opinion piece of Weigel's based on his understanding or misunderstanding of the way he thinks the talks might go, do we have a more authoritative source?  Maybe I should just await the outcome?  If so, any ideas on when that might be?  Thanks.

If ANYONE involved in those talks, on either side, learned ANYTHING from V2, it's got to be "No leaks. No reports until it's final."

What's written down in the documents of V2, as a general rule, aren't terribly, uh, bizarre. What happened is that people got wind of something, got all caught up in the spirit, and started making changes before anything was final. No where does it say that guitars and bongos were approved. Nowhere does it say rip out the altar rails. V2 ended in the 1960s. The Canon Law regarding veils was still in effect until 1983!! (Don't digress into whether that's abrogated, that's not the point of this thread) I don't recall seeing women wearing veils much, except the old ladies, since maybe... 1971? Somewhere 'round there, anyway...  What happened?

People had one or two statements, and they interpreted them the way they felt, irregardless of context - very Protestant of them, by the way.

The best thing is for everyone involved to clam up. Unless they want to speak out publicly against speculators like Weigel. Then they should shout .       

[Scipio_a]

SoCalLocal


You have the best avatar EVER


I could kick myself for not thinking of that guy.  Especially as the General in "Kelly's Hero's"

[winoblue1]

I think Weigel doesn't know what he is talking about.
Yes the two sides are not equivalent, but the reason that the SSPX and the Vatican are discussing issues is because the critque proposed by the SSPX is an extreme embarassment to the Vatican.
It doesn't matter which side has more power --- it depends on which side has the truth.
Also, Weigel goes on to say that the Vatican is inviting the SSPX to accept settled doctrine, this shows his ignorance because the whole issue here is that settled doctrine has been unsettled by V2 and that the SSPX has been consistently asking for the Vatican to settle it.
Of course the great advantage of forcing these talks is to give an opportunity for the Holy Ghost to act.
When a definitive statement is made it HAS to be traditional, the Holy Ghost cannot act otherwise and this the SSPX is relying on.

[Baskerville]

I think Weigel doesn't know what he is talking about.
Yes the two sides are not equivalent, but the reason that the SSPX and the Vatican are discussing issues is because the critque proposed by the SSPX is an extreme embarassment to the Vatican.
It doesn't matter which side has more power --- it depends on which side has the truth.
Also, Weigel goes on to say that the Vatican is inviting the SSPX to accept settled doctrine, this shows his ignorance because the whole issue here is that settled doctrine has been unsettled by V2 and that the SSPX has been consistently asking for the Vatican to settle it.
Of course the great advantage of forcing these talks is to give an opportunity for the Holy Ghost to act.
When a definitive statement is made it HAS to be traditional, the Holy Ghost cannot act otherwise and this the SSPX is relying on.

Also Weigel goes out of his way to say that these are not "discussions" he says it like three times, while the Vatican has called them discussions.

[Baskerville]

Here's the way it is as I see it. Weigel is a NOtard who has spent the last 30 some years being an apologist for the NO and its new religion. If these talks prove fruitful than his whole career has been a waste. Look for the Notards to get very vocal during these discussions. Alot is riding on the line for the hermeneutic of continuity smells and bells crowed.

[Gerard]

I think Weigel doesn't know what he is talking about.
Yes the two sides are not equivalent, but the reason that the SSPX and the Vatican are discussing issues is because the critque proposed by the SSPX is an extreme embarassment to the Vatican.
It doesn't matter which side has more power --- it depends on which side has the truth.
Also, Weigel goes on to say that the Vatican is inviting the SSPX to accept settled doctrine, this shows his ignorance because the whole issue here is that settled doctrine has been unsettled by V2 and that the SSPX has been consistently asking for the Vatican to settle it.
Of course the great advantage of forcing these talks is to give an opportunity for the Holy Ghost to act.
When a definitive statement is made it HAS to be traditional, the Holy Ghost cannot act otherwise and this the SSPX is relying on.

Beautifully stated.

[Gerard]

Just for fun, a comparison between Weigel's article and the recent articles by Chris Ferrara and John Salza show who is actually a writing substantive articles worth reading. 


http://www.remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/2009-1031-ferrara-sspx.htm


http://www.remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/2009-1115-salza-vaticansspx_discussion.htm

I suspect Weigel does not want to admit that JPII and Paul VI were terrible Popes who did enormous damage to the faith and mislead millions of people (Weigel included.)

[glgas]

I think Weigel doesn't know what he is talking about.
Yes the two sides are not equivalent, but the reason that the SSPX and the Vatican are discussing issues is because the critque proposed by the SSPX is an extreme embarassment to the Vatican.
It doesn't matter which side has more power --- it depends on which side has the truth.

An organization of 1000 million members and 400,000 priest about as much could be embarassed by an organization of about 100,000 member and 500 priest, like an elephant could be embarrassed by an ant,

Jesus Christ deposited the decision about truth with binding and loosing power to the hand of the Pope. We all can err, so we need Magisterium to know what is the truth.

The pope feel sorry for you, and for your confusion about the truth. The most basic Catholic truth is, that the depository of the truth is the Magisterium and not any individual, and you vehemently claim, that you are the depository of the truth, you are right, the Pope, vicar of Jesus Christ is wrong.

The most frightening is, that you never say what is wrong with pope Benedict, just yell empty words.

I can relate to Father Cekada, he is arguing, ant want to understand. You just deceive yourself  to believe that you and only you are the depository of the truth. The pharisee at least sat in Moses seat that was behind their lip service.

[Scipio_a]

An organization of 1000 million members and 400,000 priest about as much could be embarassed by an organization of about 100,000 member and 500 priest, like an elephant could be embarrassed by an ant,

Jesus Christ deposited the decision about truth with binding and loosing power to the hand of the Pope. We all can err, so we need Magisterium to know what is the truth.

The pope feel sorry for you, and for your confusion about the truth. The most basic Catholic truth is, that the depository of the truth is the Magisterium and not any individual, and you vehemently claim, that you are the depository of the truth, you are right, the Pope, vicar of Jesus Christ is wrong.

The most frightening is, that you never say what is wrong with pope Benedict, just yell empty words.

I can relate to Father Cekada, he is arguing, ant want to understand. You just deceive yourself  to believe that you and only you are the depository of the truth. The pharisee at least sat in Moses seat that was behind their lip service.

First you got the numbers wrong....if there are a billion Catholics in the world....then where are they?   ....LOL

The SSPX certainly have more parishioners than 100k....more like 101k

anyway...the modernists who know what's going on (unlike their drone army...you and petrolltron) are afraid of the SSPX  because with the SSPX...and +Thuc and +AdC-M the priesthood was maintained....without them you would have no priests at some point...this was the goal of the archmodernists....and their little army of automatons...and they lost....that is why they are afraid of the SSPX and did everything they could to subvert it...and think if they are sly now they will be able to get some agreement from them that will compromise them in the long run.

The funny thing is it probably won't work...if we're lucky as a race the Rosary Crusade will work and that will be the end of modernism


If it does work...the modernists will have a bastion they will not be able to trick...the sedeprivantists and sedevacantists...and the priesthood will continue....just outside publicly acknowledged Church structures....and the sedes won't care cause that's where they've been from the start of all this....no matter what happens...the official structure loses in the end...and true Catholicism will survive and triumph


As for the Pharisees...they still run the official structure...no change there.

[maldon]

Without Archbishop Lefebvre, Tradition would have continued until the end of time. Tradition depends on the existence of no man, however great he may have been. I am grateful to the Archbishop for doing the right thing, for taking a stand in the face of evil, for basically sacrificing his career and ultimately his life in defence of Tradition. But he would have known full well that Tradition, essential to the existence of the Church, would go on with him or without him. Tradition was not at risk. Souls were at risk. I believe he suffered terribly at the thought of so many souls that would slip off to the periphery of faith because of the evil of ecclesiastics.

As for Weigel, he is a unique character, and is emblematic of neo-Catholicism, but I think he is incapable of understanding especially 2 things: the hierarchical structure of the Church and the authority of tradition in the Church. This is why he writes and speaks like a man who feels he has a layman's duty to help steer the Church in the right direction, like a politician. All of this is sadly wasted energy. He does not get it. He is like an enthusiastic, recently converted protestant.

[Louis_Martin]

I don't get these guys like Weigel.  They treat SSPX like they are scum trying to undermine the Church, but they get all excited about ecumenism with the Anglicans.  The SSPX are validly ordained priests, the Anglicans were clear dissenters.  The Anglican thing is working out pretty well, but for some reason these guys hate the idea of talking to the SSPX.  What harm could come of it?  Oh yes, the SSPX being right about many things.  That would be terrible for Weigel and his lot.

[John92]

http://www.archden.org/index.cfm/ID/2952

The SSPX has to agree to things that are not dogma?  That's how I read Weigel's interpretation.

"Does the SSPX accept that the age of altar-and-throne alliances, confessional states, and legally established Catholicism is over, and that the Catholic Church rejects the use of coercive state power on behalf of its truth claims?"

truth claims?  truth claims?!

Who is this guy, a Catholic theologian or a High School guidance counselor?